Aspects of golf courses that can be criticized w/o playing the “opinion” card

[Tim Martin]

Function is not opinion.
Good design, good golf design art, must function.

I am enjoying this thread and the two sentences penned by Don above really hit home. I love it when words so succinct can capture the essence of something so beautifully.

[Mark_Fine]

Ira,
Let's agree to disagree about the comparison but you make good points regardless.  It is mind blowing to look at your iPhone (even if you have been in that industry) and try to understand how the electronics in something like that is designed and manufactured.  I've tried explaining it to my Mom and there is no way to simply it to get her to comprehend.  Again, not to take anything away from GCA but I will argue it is easier to explain the essence behind most (not all) golf holes 

[Ira Fishman]

I did not make the comparison. You did. The math and physics underlying the IPhone or any other digital device are beautiful. But that also is true for the Compass. That simply has nothing to do with figuring out intent.


Ira

[Sean_A]

We’ve been bantering on about serious criticism on several threads for a couple weeks now. I’m struggling with separating anything about ones’ opinion on anything that doesn’t fall into the category of opinion. The first thing I can kind of say is a fair thing to criticize, without it being an opinion, would be a routing that creates a logjam in play. What else is fair game?

Maybe once we have a list of flaws that are outside the judgement of opinion, we can start to identify courses with such flaws as examples.

I expect this to be a short list, but you guys are way smarter and well traveled than I.

Joe

I would think the most important fact to know is the design intent in the context of the property. Knowing the design intent would frame the criticism. I am not convinced this can be determined as a fact for the vast majority of courses. At the very least I want the serious critic to present a very educated guess as to the design intent even though it is an opinion. For instance, there isn't much point in being critical of Sawgrass as not playable for all if the design intent is to challenge the best players in the world on a site that was a swamp. Or saying Oakmont is too difficult when the design intent is to be difficult. A serious critique has to stay with in the confines of the design intent.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Sean:  If the design intent 100 years ago was to be difficult but there is no room for modern length, do you then dismiss the course because it can't keep that standard?


I think you evaluate a course on the basis of how it works for all players in the present day.  If you're at Pine Valley or Oakmont, you recognize that they're special cases, but you still point out that they are not for everybody, and one is more playable for a 20 than the other.  Otherwise every stupidly brutal modern course is going to insist you treat them like Pine Valley and discount the fact they're unplayable.


Likewise, if a course is 6100 yards, it's important to say whether it's interesting for today's low handicap golfer or not.  Some are much better at that than others!


Relying on design intent just invites guys to pretend they're experts.

[Joe Hancock]

Thanks for the responses. I’m beginning to realize that when I hear a serious criticism of a golf course, I’m discovering more about the critic than I am the golf course.

[Sean_A]

For the most part, the old big guns are the exceptions. That number is slowing decreasing to the point where relatively few old courses are used as tests for pros. I wouldn't dismiss any course, simply say the course is no longer suitable for the design intent....that doesn't translate to a bad course imo, just one that now fails that test.  Isn't this the main reason for a ton a of work on courses...to recapture or perhaps reinvent the design intent?  I think its mainly a waste of time and money with the exception of tree removal, green and fairway expansion, but it seems to be the main reason for adding length and moving bunkers.  In any cases, at some point, the design intent is generally decided by the club. Courses are repurposed. Some clubs except this gracefully and others try to hang on in the world of elite golf. Merion is a prime example. The Course has been altered and set up differently to remain relevant for the pros. We can debate if Merion actually does a good job of testing pros, but it is the USGA which makes the decisions. We also have to consider where is the line between entertainment and identifying the national champion.

In the context of newer courses I would say the design intent has to be a bit more specific. Courses knowing they are getting events before they are built. Its a bit of fools gold to say the intent is to host pros, but pros never turn up.  How can anyone critique such a course for pros if there is no evidence of pros playing?  Its not a great approach to building courses.  I think if this mantra was tested in hard times, there is no way we would have seen the proliferation of 7000 yard etc as must have elements for courses.  It just happens that these courses were built in boom times and for many courses it didn't much matter what was built. With the tours as the guiding PR, people ate it up without much thought. Same for fast greens.

Ciao

[V. Kmetz]

So, back to "aspects ...that can be criticized..." I am thinking that while everything's an opinion at some level (back to Aristotle), "objective opinion" of the type the post is selecting, is shown by that which can't be readily defended.

I may have missed something, but all I've heard is "drainage" and "choke points"... and yes, poor, costly or compromising drainage cannot be readily defended, and neither can a choke point, though I suppose if 14G/15/16 at CPC is one, nobody's going to bitch.

How about:
1. Tee to green distances?
...which itself is one aspect of...
2. General walkability?
...even if you're a "Cartographer" like me, the facility of grounds readily walked (and not hiked) goes hand in hand with the playing of golf... if it's hard to walk, it's hard to play; if it's grueling to walk, then it's grueling to play. (**one critique, I have of some sacred cows, like Sleepy Hollow...is it just my opinion, or aren't 2-7, 13, 18 a challenging walk?...remembering that it's not just the "cardio" of "up" but the "osteo" of "down"***).
3. Continuous hazard/OB on same side for a great portion?
I'm not saying that it means tOC OB right is crap, nor is McDonald's photographic negative at Chicago less of an irony, but doesn't it fatigue (a bit) to be faced with the same penalty proposition each time? One of the reasons I have critique of Quaker....and look at the threads on the Florida courses...when the month of March is complete, you've had your TV-GCA fill of water bordering holes the entire length.

Thanks for the responses. I’m beginning to realize that when I hear a serious criticism of a golf course, I’m discovering more about the critic than I am the golf course.

You sure are... e.g. if the opinion card is the opposite of objective critique, then the Custodians' list (especially its rubric preamble) is a Pinochle deck of personal opinion. 

[Ira Fishman]

Joe,


That has been the criticism of criticism for quite some time. I generally read three reviews before I buy a book unless I know enough about the critic to know whether I find him or her trustworthy for my tastes in books. One of the aspects of this site that I like best is that one can get multiple views of a course before deciding whether to play it.


Ira

[Don Mahaffey]

Joe,
As your network has grown in the golf building world and you’ve had the chance to work with a wider variety of architects on varied sites, have you found your opinions to become more muted, or kept more to yourself? 

[Mark_Fine]

Joe,
Is that really surprising about learning more about the critic than the course?  If you do renovation or restoration work you hear that kind of thing ALL the time, e.g. I don’t like that pond because I can’t carry it, I am always in that bunker we should get rid of it, that hole is too short or too long, why would someone put a bunker right in the middle of the fairway, I think we should plant a tree here, why should we take those trees down, ...the list goes on and on. 

As an architect, part of the job is to address these kinds of questions and provide thoughtful answers.  We need to do our best to explain past and present design intent whether any one here likes it or not.  How else do you address questions like those above?  If someone on a grounds committee you are addressing asks for example why did Tillinghast put a bunker in a certain location, I don’t think the right answer is I have no idea. At a minimum you need to explain the purpose/s it serves as it is there now.  And I happen to feel if you can find past documentation that helps explain why Tillinghast put it there in the first place then that is even better. 

Yes most golfers look at things from their own point of view.  It is natural to do so.  It is up to the architect to educate them and help explain “other points of view” and hopefully one of those is the architect’s educated guess of why the designer did what they did.  If he doesn’t know, who are you going to rely on to figure that out so you make smart decisions about how to manage and maintain your golf course? 

[Tom_Doak]

It is up to the architect to educate them and help explain “other points of view” and hopefully one of those is the architect’s educated guess of why the designer did what they did.  If he doesn’t know, who are you going to rely on to figure that out so you make smart decisions about how to manage and maintain your golf course?

Mark:


Here is where we disagree.


It is easy to explain to a committee that there are other points of view and that a certain hole works better for some players but not well for others.  And if your opinion is respected because you are a successful architect yourself, then you do not have to couch everything in pretending you are channeling the original architect.


At the same time, if you are respectful of the original architect's work, you won't want to change things you don't have to change.


Adding tees is easy, so really the only test of one's recommendations is whether to move fairway bunkers on a hole where the tee cannot be extended. 


Some will insist that it was the architect's intent that a particular bunker challenge A CERTAIN PLAYER [say a 5 handicap] and therefore that bunker should be moved in range of today's longer-hitting 5-handicap. 


Others will say, leave that bunker alone, but add two more further downrange where the original architect did not imagine anyone being able to go.


Others [me] will say that the bunker challenges the player who hits it 220 yards, as it always has.  The advantage of this approach is that there is always a perfect solution, because it is already in the ground, whereas in the other scenarios, a bunker at 290 might be very awkward in the terrain.


The assumption that all golf courses are designed around what the low handicapper does is the conceit of low handicap players such as yourself.[/me]

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
Heading to a course now so don’t have time to talk but where it really matters is when you get to a course that’s completely changed already.  Just be clear my goal isn’t to try to change things if I don’t have to. 


Take Desert Forest for an example,
the course as it’s been renovated might be fantastic but I’m not your person to get involved with a project like that unless you want someone to come in and refine what was originally there that’s what I do.

[archie_struthers]

 


Function comes first in designing a golf course.(


 1) If it doesn't drain it doesn't work.
 2)   If you can't walk it it might not work.
 3) If you can't afford to maintain it doesn't work


 You can't build a "great "  golf course without #1 or #2  (IMO)  but every situation or opportunity in design is supported by the economics , plain and simple. Opinion isn't really much of a factor


If you are talking what you like as to style that's different. 


 

[Ira Fishman]

It is up to the architect to educate them and help explain “other points of view” and hopefully one of those is the architect’s educated guess of why the designer did what they did.  If he doesn’t know, who are you going to rely on to figure that out so you make smart decisions about how to manage and maintain your golf course?

Mark:


Here is where we disagree.


It is easy to explain to a committee that there are other points of view and that a certain hole works better for some players but not well for others.  And if your opinion is respected because you are a successful architect yourself, then you do not have to couch everything in pretending you are channeling the original architect.


At the same time, if you are respectful of the original architect's work, you won't want to change things you don't have to change.


Adding tees is easy, so really the only test of one's recommendations is whether to move fairway bunkers on a hole where the tee cannot be extended. 


Some will insist that it was the architect's intent that a particular bunker challenge A CERTAIN PLAYER [say a 5 handicap] and therefore that bunker should be moved in range of today's longer-hitting 5-handicap. 


Others will say, leave that bunker alone, but add two more further downrange where the original architect did not imagine anyone being able to go.


Others [me] will say that the bunker challenges the player who hits it 220 yards, as it always has.  The advantage of this approach is that there is always a perfect solution, because it is already in the ground, whereas in the other scenarios, a bunker at 290 might be very awkward in the terrain.


The assumption that all golf courses are designed around what the low handicapper does is the conceit of low handicap players such as yourself.[/me]

Virtually all courses will never host a Pro event or even Top Am event and very few courses have a large number of low handicap long hitters. Therefore, for the overwhelming majority of courses moving or adding bunkers seems to be a waste of time and money. I understand why a course would want to return the bunker style or green complexes to closer to their original states or to remove subsequently added bunkers or trees, but those decisions are not about how the original architect intended the course to play for a very small percentage of golfers. Rather they are about an appreciation for the history of the course and for the history of the architect.


Ira

[V. Kmetz]

In all these propositions though - and I agree that this is one area where you can examine such items, as to the improvement of the hole - doesn't the propositions move for all players, in some proportion to what was there in the original iteration

Some will insist that it was the architect's intent that a particular bunker challenge A CERTAIN PLAYER [say a 5 handicap] and therefore that bunker should be moved in range of today's longer-hitting 5-handicap.
First, can't that sometimes be established, and thus insisting on a knowable intent is not bad?
Second, even without establishment, didn't whatever that bunker represent at origin to the 5 handicap, also represent something to the other handicaps/players (never a problem for a scratch, a pro or a shorter player, or a second shot hazard for the highest handicap/shorter players)?

Others will say, leave that bunker alone, but add two more further downrange where the original architect did not imagine anyone being able to go.
Whether adding-subtracting a net one, two or any number downrange to keep the hole current to how its played today (in distance alone) to how it played in its first iteration (without knowing intentions, just as "revealed") is to me much different then creating a wholly new bunker on one side in-range that sets up a new strategic/hazard proposition that was never there... One of the few contentions I have for GH at WF is WFE #8... he removed the bunker/bunkers on the outside right of the dog leg at 230-250 and replaced them/it with a new bunker on the inside left at 250<>280...it might even make strategic sense to some, but its Hanse's change, not restoring Tillinghast's strategy for a modern era... At the same time, the movement downrange 35 yards of the left fairway bunker of #2 West was a judicious proportional update as it had come to trouble very few white tee/shorter hitters and a valid strategy there was to just whack one over it.  Can't do that so much anymore.

Others [me] will say that the bunker challenges the player who hits it 220 yards, as it always has.  The advantage of this approach is that there is always a perfect solution, because it is already in the ground, whereas in the other scenarios, a bunker at 290 might be very awkward in the terrain.
As I said in the first, the bunker at 220 was likely a different kind of problem for the shorter/higher handicap, as may be the new one at 290 (or 280, 300)... In so saying, I realize that the better the player, the more of a technological advantage...Mrs Havisham is still beating it 75 yards with a SIM2, as she did with her Yonex, as she did with her Louise Suggs...


The assumption that all golf courses are designed around what the low handicapper does is the conceit of low handicap players...
No disagreement there...I'm just proposing that it's not a defacement of an architect's work to implement specific updates that refresh the hole's basic propositions, as designed and encountered by the original generation foe which it was designed.
[/m]

[Tom_Doak]

The assumption that all golf courses are designed around what the low handicapper does is the conceit of low handicap players...
No disagreement there...I'm just proposing that it's not a defacement of an architect's work to implement specific updates that refresh the hole's basic propositions, as designed and encountered by the original generation foe which it was designed.

VK:  No disagreement there, from me ... I'm just proposing that any such work is a matter of opinion, and a change.  Pretending it's what the original architect intended is b.s.

[V. Kmetz]

The assumption that all golf courses are designed around what the low handicapper does is the conceit of low handicap players...
No disagreement there...I'm just proposing that it's not a defacement of an architect's work to implement specific updates that refresh the hole's basic propositions, as designed and encountered by the original generation foe which it was designed.

VK:  No disagreement there, from me ... I'm just proposing that any such work is a matter of opinion, and a change.  Pretending it's what the original architect intended is b.s.

But there's levels of opinion and provenance... I mean c'mon, you've graciously explained so much about your courses here, about why this is there, and that turned out that way... you mean absent that...if in 100 years...a guy is renostorating your courses and realizes the purpose for this bunker or that is no more or is impeding lively play or despite your pains, is unable to be maintained or suffers damage... that it will be an opinion?  That fairway of Red this was pinched to defend a shorter route on Blue that, that would be an opinion to alter it to reflect what your needs were at the time of your career?

[Peter Pallotta]

VK - I've had the same thought/question on this thread and across many other recent ones. So, thanks for asking about it. So far, the only 'explanation' I have for this confusion/debate is that maybe folks are using 'intent' in two different ways, ie the practical/functional and the experiential (for lack of a better word).

The first: the bunker is there at that spot in order to force a choice.
The second: I want to force a choice there, at that spot on this hole, *because*....

On second thought, I'd better wait for Tom to answer.

[Mark_Fine]

I am also anxious to see how Tom responds.  Some of us do A LOT of research to try our best to dig up stuff like this (explanations from the original architect as to why things were done or designed as they were).  Some don't bother and just wing it because they are well established golf architects with dozens of their own courses under their belt so who needs to go read Bobby Jones book to understand what he might have been thinking when he designed the 13th hole at Augusta.  This is why sooo many courses get changed they way they do.  You should see the changes made to the latest two courses I am working on.  Clearly there was NO regard to what Gordon did or might do.  And if someone begs to differ with me then so be it but I can at least back up my opinions with clear documentation whether it be old photos, aerials, original drawings, articles, ...  I don't think any of that is BS. 


The challenge these days is that there are lots of "opinions" and in GCA there are rarely clear rights or wrongs.  Someone could have a nice old Ross course that is mostly well preserved and the bones all still there but has greens that have shrunk, bunkers that have lost their shape and/or been grassed over, some silly trees planted, mowing lines out of wack,... and Tom Fazio could come in there and tear the place up and make it a brand new golf course that wins some best renovation award.  Is that right or wrong?  Or someone can come in and say, I can help you refresh your tired design and restore much of the original design so when I finish it looks like I was never there.  Is that right or wrong?  At the end of the day it is all just an opinion. 

[Peter Pallotta]

Mark -
I just read Tom's post #9 on the 'what were they thinking' thread, and I think/think that I may have a better idea of how he might respond on this thread. I do think that, as often happens around here, the 'words' themselves can cause the debate, i.e. the varying definitions that various folks consciously or not bring to the table. To put it too bluntly: there's a big difference between "I intend this to be a Par 5 where if you challenge the creek you cut the distance and get a better lie" and "I intend this hole, now & forevermore, to be a reachable Par 5, but only if using a fairway wood or long iron and only from the left side of the fairway near the creek".

[Tom_Doak]

Mark -
I just read Tom's post #9 on the 'what were they thinking' thread, and I think/think that I may have a better idea of how he might respond on this thread. I do think that, as often happens around here, the 'words' themselves can cause the debate, i.e. the varying definitions that various folks consciously or not bring to the table. To put it too bluntly: there's a big difference between "I intend this to be a Par 5 where if you challenge the creek you cut the distance and get a better lie" and "I intend this hole, now & forevermore, to be a reachable Par 5, but only if using a fairway wood or long iron and only from the left side of the fairway near the creek".

Yes, and thank you.


While the famous old architects surely thought about their designs in relation to their own games, and to the players of their day, as all architects do, none of them [to my knowledge] ever wrote anything about moving bunkers downrange in fifty years to keep the hazards relevant for long hitters of the future.  And it's not like they couldn't have imagined players and equipment were going to change:  they had all just seen it happen with their own eyes. 


So why did they not address that in their writings?  Why didn't they leave their clients with a long-term plan?  It's one of two reasons:  either they guessed that everything would change in fifty years and it would look silly to try and keep that change at bay, or, they valued the relationship between their hazards and the topography and they wanted that preserved.


Some spoke of "elasticity" and trying to leave room for tees further back where they had the opportunity to do so, and there would be few places where such opportunities have not been utilized in the past 50 years.


Now, among modern architects, both Pete Dye and Jack Nicklaus were fairly obsessed with keeping their courses relevant, not just for the member but for the Tour pro.  Pete struggled to do that at Crooked Stick, as many of the new hazards had to be installed over the crest of the fairway, resulting in contrived-looking forms in order to be visible from the tee.


But does Bill Coore go back to his old courses and move his bunkers downrange, or has he left instructions on when to do so?


I certainly have not . . . in fact the only purpose in my continued replies to Mark is to make the point that I don't want that done to my courses.  I'm certainly not doing it because I think Mark will ever see the light in what I'm saying.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
Obviously we disagree on a few points here and I think that is ok.  I am not saying either of us is right or wrong. I tried to give an example above pointing this out.  In that example, do you think one architect did the wrong thing vs the other? 

Clearly there are bunkers that you would never move because they fit perfectly into a land form or might be blind (as you pointed out) if moved down range.  But there are times (especially on many of the courses that I work on) where the design canvas wasn't Pacific Dunes or Sand Hills.  It was just a barren cornfield and the cut and fill bunkers frankly could be placed anywhere.  If an old bunker has simply become a penal hazard for the weaker golfer and the better golfer doesn't even know it is there, do you keep it?  Sometimes you do and sometimes you don't.  I believe in making the game fun and more interesting and thought provoking for all levels of golfers and if there are things we can do to help that happen we often try to do it.  Of course this goes back to an opinion of what that should be. 

The one thing I have always done whether anyone likes it or not is study the history of ANY course I am working on before I make ANY kind of strong recommendations.  I also believe, right or wrong, that the architect is expected to know something about the history of the course, about the architects that have designed or worked on it, and its evolution.  The only reason you would do any of that research is to gain a better understanding of the design.  Why else bother.  I believe an architect is there to offer their opinions based on that information and couple that with what the owners/caretakers of the course have in mind.  From there it is up to the group to decide what is best for the golf course.  You will never see me finish a Master Plan and/or a proposal of recommendations and say to the owners, "now who was it who designed this golf course"? 


Tom, someday when we are all gone and whether you like it or not, someone will do some work on one and or all your golf courses.  Maybe it will be an architect or some "expert" who has done a lot of research on Tom Doak and dug up your posts like that last one so they have some better idea of your intentions.  They might think after doing all this that they can explain to the club who you were and what you thought about your golf courses and GCA in general and base their recommendations on this research.  Or maybe it might be some big ego architect who just won the best new golf course of the year for their latest design who gets invited in and says, I have no idea who Tom Doak was nor do I care.  This is what "I" think should be done to your golf course to make it better.  I don't know what the best choice is but I know if it were my design, who I would choose.  If you don't think this is a real scenario then again we are of a difference of opinion because I see it happening all the time at least on many of the projects I work on.  I have enjoyed the exchange 

[Joe Hancock]

Joe,
As your network has grown in the golf building world and you’ve had the chance to work with a wider variety of architects on varied sites, have you found your opinions to become more muted, or kept more to yourself? 

Don,


It’s a good question. In general, I’m a “conflict avoidance” type, and have, in the past, tried to become more direct when it is beneficial to do so. I discovered that my opinions are just that, and my need to share those opinions ought to have the potential for a positive effect. If I were to share all my opinions just to prove what I know, or that my opinion is more “correct” than someone else’s, then I’m most likely to look like a fool.....and I give myself too many opportunities for that as is.


I do find that when I have a chance to voice an opinion for a good reason, my growing experiences with people, sites and processes lends a little more credibility, but it would be easy for me to say too much as well. I would rather not express too many negative opinions, because, mostly, I’m not a negative person.

[Ira Fishman]

Mark,


I believe that research is essential if one is trying to return a course to what was in the ground when first designed. But no amount of research absent explicit writings from the architect can let you or anyone else know what the architect intended such that you after hundreds of hours of research or anyone else could recommend moving bunkers and other features because it would make the course faithful to the architect’s intent. At best it is a somewhat informed guess. At worst, it screws up the landforms if implemented. It is a fool’s errand to try to return a course to “original intent”.


Ira